Hot Take [Updated 29/12/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

[Evjl's Rain]

Comparison between browser extensions

Test 29/12
Q&A - [Updated 29/12/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 24/11
Q&A - [Updated 24/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 12/11
Q&A - [Updated 12/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 7/11
Q&A - [Updated 7/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 6/9
Q&A - [Updated 3/9/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 3/9
Q&A - [Updated 3/9/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 2/9
Q&A - [Updated 25/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test, quick 1/9
Q&A - [Updated 25/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Fun test 25/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 24/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 24/7/2018 (most comprehensive, as possible)
Q&A - [Updated 24/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 19/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 10/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 18/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 10/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 10/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 10/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 7/6/2018
Q&A - [Updated 7/6/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 3/6/2018
Q&A - [Updated 3/6/18] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 25/4/2018
Poll - [Updated 25/4/18] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Update: 23/3/2018
Poll - [Updated 23/3/18] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings


Browser: Google Chrome 65 x64
Malware and phishing links: 10 malc0de, 10 vxvault, 10 openphish, 10 verified phishtank, 10 unverified phishtank
Total: 50 links

Spoiler: Links

Dropbox - link test 17-3-2018.txt

Extensions: recently downloaded from Chrome Web Store
- Google Safe Browsing (built-in chrome's protection)
- AdGuard AdBlocker: default settings, uses Google Safe Browsing (delayed) and their own database
- Avira browser safety: default settings
- Norton Safe Web: default settings
- Bitdefender Trafficlight: default settings, it rarely blocks any malware links, just old ones
- Avast Online Security: default settings, only has phishing protection, expected to score 0 against malwares
- Netcraft Extension: default settings, only has phishing protection, expected to score 0 against malwares
- uBlock Origin with some additional filters

Spoiler: ublock origin filters

http://hosts-file.net/emd.txt
http://hosts-file.net/exp.txt
http://hosts-file.net/pup.txt
http://hosts-file.net/psh.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts
https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_DOMBL.txt
https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_IPBL.txt
https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_URLBL.txt

NOTE: the result can vary from day-to-day. Tomorrow with different links, the result can be very different. All are live links but they can be dead a few minutes after the test. No duplication

Results:

Winner: Google Safe Browsing

 

[LDogg]

Netcraft even got it now as well, fairly slow in adding it to it's database. Least the positive thing is now that the site has been blocked.

~LDogg

 

[Moonhorse]

Most phishing sites aren't up for longer than 24/49 hours, why such worry?

The whole thread is about effectiveness of browser extensions , comparison in phishing and blocking malware

Usually when we are tested the urls here, people are getting urls from phishtank etc. evjl and some of other members have of course better sources of having more fresh urls than phishtank

Usually netcraft and forticlient are scoring 100%, but the two urls i sent are up for more than 36 hours. Are these just zero days of phishing urls, probably not currently linked to huge crowd and its why theyre slowly blocked

Anyway default deny of phishing ( can i call it like that? ) extensions like blocksi, forticlient (not extension) and trace could be effective by simply having such blocking rules and not heurestic like netcraft or malwarebytes probably have

Its not that we are falling into these phishing urls..i doubt many members have ever fallen into such sites...for me these kind of testing and comparing means that i can tell my friends/ family members to install such extensions or antivirus wide such av to avoid them being in contact with such scams/frauds/phishing sites

 

[oldschool]

Because a respected member's name is used?


View attachment 212577

Yes, I'm quite popular! Oh, and I'm a hacker!

 

[TairikuOkami]

Most phishing sites aren't up for longer than 24/49 hours, why such worry?

Exactly, that is the problem, because that is the golden hour, afterwards, links are either blocked or disabled, so they are just moved to the new links and it starts again. It is about effectiveness of the service after it has been reported. Opendns responds within minutes, K9/Norton within hours.

 

[amico81]

VirusTotal

This phishing link been up for more than 12 hours, why isnt any engine detecting it? I have reported it to multiple vendors without answer

blocked by webroot

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

Avira with extension blocks the same..and allows some times _/\_

 

[imuade]

Bye bye k9 web protection

Broadcom Support Portal

support.symantec.com

Effective immediately, K9 Web Protection is no longer available for purchase or download. Technical Support for K9 will end on June 30, 2019

 

[Decopi]

Hello @Evjl's Rain !

Sadly today I was informed (@imuade ) about K9. For me K9 was an exceptional alternative (without the ugly/nightmare blocking lists). Anyway, now I am looking for a K9 replacement. In my opinion, you are the highest authority in this subject, so please allow me to consult you:

1) Browser extensions/add-ons are a pain in the @ss. So, I have two alternatives: To use native internal browser blocking tools, or to use system/network/desktop level alternatives for blocking tracking/ads/malware. With regards to this second alternative (system/network/desktop level), I already know about Pi-hole, Adguard-desktop, Comodo Firewall, and DNS services. Do you know any other good system/network/desktop level alternative for blocking tracking/ads/malwares?

2) I still have Comodo Firewall/CS' settings. I can use the "Web Filter" option in order to customize my blocked lists. Please, can you update your recommended lists for blocking tracking, ads and malwares?

Thank you in advance!

 

[imuade]

Hello @Evjl's Rain !

Sadly today I was informed (@imuade ) about K9. For me K9 was an exceptional alternative (without the ugly/nightmare blocking lists). Anyway, now I am looking for a K9 replacement. In my opinion, you are the highest authority in this subject, so please allow me to consult you:

1) Browser extensions/add-ons are a pain in the @ss. So, I have two alternatives: To use native internal browser blocking tools, or to use system/network/desktop level alternatives for blocking tracking/ads/malware. With regards to this second alternative (system/network/desktop level), I already know about Pi-hole, Adguard-desktop, Comodo Firewall, and DNS services. Do you know any other good system/network/desktop level alternative for blocking tracking/ads/malwares?

2) I still have Comodo Firewall/CS' settings. I can use the "Web Filter" option in order to customize my blocked lists. Please, can you update your recommended lists for blocking tracking, ads and malwares?

Thank you in advance!

A good alternative is FortiClient. When you install it, you can choose to install the web filter only. It's very effective, even if it uses several processes

Another alternative is CleanBrowsing DNS (compatible with DNScrypt)

 

[Burrito]

Bye bye k9 web protection

Broadcom Support Portal

support.symantec.com

Oh wow. Norton has made many changes lately.

I wonder if this indicates that they have a new product in the pipeline...

Or, maybe this is just an effect of the recently released 'new and improved' Norton Safe Web with the banking module.

Thanks for letting us know.

 

[Threadripper]

AdGuard DNS/Quad9/similar + Emsisoft Browser Security (pretty much the most private blocking extension there is) + browser's built in blocklist (SmartScreen, safebrowsing, etc.) are plenty. Most software based website blockers play with certs, avoid avoid avoid.

 

[Moonhorse]

Hello @Evjl's Rain !

Sadly today I was informed (@imuade ) about K9. For me K9 was an exceptional alternative (without the ugly/nightmare blocking lists). Anyway, now I am looking for a K9 replacement. In my opinion, you are the highest authority in this subject, so please allow me to consult you:

1) Browser extensions/add-ons are a pain in the @ss. So, I have two alternatives: To use native internal browser blocking tools, or to use system/network/desktop level alternatives for blocking tracking/ads/malware. With regards to this second alternative (system/network/desktop level), I already know about Pi-hole, Adguard-desktop, Comodo Firewall, and DNS services. Do you know any other good system/network/desktop level alternative for blocking tracking/ads/malwares?

2) I still have Comodo Firewall/CS' settings. I can use the "Web Filter" option in order to customize my blocked lists. Please, can you update your recommended lists for blocking tracking, ads and malwares?

Thank you in advance!

-sophos home free has dashboard, wich has family filters + malware blocking of course....with CF its okay

-Forticlient has the best web filter available currently ( in my opinion + free aswell) only downside is that it might be blocking youtube for some users , atleast for me it will run youtube completely in restricted mode so im unable to watch all videos available...otherwise i have not seen any other problems

- Blocksi (extension) has family filter + combine it with new chromium edge you have smartscreen aswell or google safebrowsing

I would personaly just stick either google chrome ( google safe browsing) or chromium edge ( smartscreen) + ublock origin (ads)

 

[Rebsat]

Anyone else tried NoScript for Chrome-based browser?

NoScript - Chrome Web Store

Maximum protection for your browser: NoScript allows active content only for trusted domains of your choice to prevent exploitation.

chrome.google.com

@LDogg
@HarborFront
I would like to see your updated computer security config soon

 

[HarborFront]

Anyone else tried NoScript for Chrome-based browser?

NoScript - Chrome Web Store

Maximum protection for your browser: NoScript allows active content only for trusted domains of your choice to prevent exploitation.

chrome.google.com

@LDogg
@HarborFront
I would like to see your updated computer security config soon

My laptop security will most likely be 'RISKY' because I'm more privacy focused. Backup will not be there for I store my data on flash/external SSD drive. Password management will not be required

 

[oldschool]

Anyone else tried NoScript for Chrome-based browser?

NoScript - Chrome Web Store

Maximum protection for your browser: NoScript allows active content only for trusted domains of your choice to prevent exploitation.

chrome.google.com

I've used it briefly but it requires more time to get comfortable with. NoScript, uMatrix, etc. all have a longer learning curve than uBO and similar. Check here for varying opinons about it: NoScript 10

I agree with this:

I would personaly just stick either google chrome ( google safe browsing) or chromium edge ( smartscreen) + ublock origin (ads)

uBO or Nano Adblocker. If you learn to use them in Advanced User Medium Mode (very short learning curve) you will be more than safe (of course, depending on web surfing habits!). Most users completely overlook this advanced option. Others simply don't want to bother. I highly recommend a little time investment in this.

 

[Burrito]

I've used it briefly but it requires more time to get comfortable with. NoScript, uMatrix, etc. all have a longer learning curve than uBO and similar. Check here for varying opinons about it: NoScript 10

I agree with this:


uBO or Nano Adblocker. If you learn to use them in Advanced User Medium Mode (very short learning curve) you will be more than safe (of course, depending on web surfing habits!). Most users completely overlook this advanced option. Others simply don't want to bother. I highly recommend a little time investment in this.

Yeah, advanced uBO can do so many things... when I first started digging into it, it seemed complicated and beyond my willingness to learn. But then it slowly sank in... it can be really powerful. uBO can be designed as default-deny in its strictest mode. It is impractical though, as this means that most web pages would be broken... just like strict NoScript.

When I used NoScript years ago, I loved it at first. I thought it was great that all scripts need permission to run.

After a while though, I got tired of 'gaming' every website to see what I had to turn off and could leave on for the website to function properly. It gave me security fatigue. And even though clearly I was safer with it... I dumped it.

Usability matters.

If a big white list were developed, I can see where that would negate some of the safety that NoScript brings.

Although I'm mildly interested to see how it does in Chrome, I'm probably not willing to mess with it that much.

 

[oldschool]

It is impractical though, as this means that most web pages would be broken... just like strict NoScript.

Actually very few web pages are broken so as to be unreadable. Other breaks in pages may involve a missing a YouTube or Vimeo iframe which is easily fixed with one click. A couple of more clicks may be necessary for sites one logs onto but once yours are set are no problem at all. Ultimately it comes down to your browsing habits and style. The key is learning which domains are usually involved in any breakage and they tend to be the same or common ones. The Hated One has the "must see" video on using Medium Mode in uBO or Nano here:

In the end it's different strokes for different folks, however this discussion is taking us way off-topic and is better suited to another thread.

 

[Azure]

Anyone else tried NoScript for Chrome-based browser?

NoScript - Chrome Web Store

Maximum protection for your browser: NoScript allows active content only for trusted domains of your choice to prevent exploitation.

chrome.google.com

@LDogg
@HarborFront
I would like to see your updated computer security config soon

I did for a short while. It's limited compared to the Firefox version. If someone wants a script-blocker then I think uBlock Origin would be a better option.

 

[Burrito]

Actually very few web pages are broken so as to be unreadable. Other breaks page may involve a missing a YouTube or Vimeo iframe which is easily fixed with one click. A couple of more clicks may be necessary for sites one logs onto but once yours are set are no problem at all. Ultimately it comes down to your browsing habits and style. The key is learning which domains are usually involved in any breakage and they tend to be the same or common ones. The Hated One has the "must see" video on using Medium Mode in uBO or Nano here:

In the end it's different strokes for different folks, however this discussion is taking us way off-topic and is better suited to another thread.

I need to dig further.

Thanks.

v/r Burrito

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Hello @Evjl's Rain !

Sadly today I was informed (@imuade ) about K9. For me K9 was an exceptional alternative (without the ugly/nightmare blocking lists). Anyway, now I am looking for a K9 replacement. In my opinion, you are the highest authority in this subject, so please allow me to consult you:

1) Browser extensions/add-ons are a pain in the @ss. So, I have two alternatives: To use native internal browser blocking tools, or to use system/network/desktop level alternatives for blocking tracking/ads/malware. With regards to this second alternative (system/network/desktop level), I already know about Pi-hole, Adguard-desktop, Comodo Firewall, and DNS services. Do you know any other good system/network/desktop level alternative for blocking tracking/ads/malwares?

2) I still have Comodo Firewall/CS' settings. I can use the "Web Filter" option in order to customize my blocked lists. Please, can you update your recommended lists for blocking tracking, ads and malwares?

Thank you in advance!

hi,
Forticlient web filter only is probably the best alternative for K9
other solutions are usually packed with their antivirus engines => more conflicts
panda web filter (standalone program) is extremely bad

1/ browser extensions: for me they are not bad. Just use these 2 extensions together: windows defender browser protection + emsisoft browser security => speed, super light & stable, good enough. They are the only painless extensions I can find
about system-wise adblocking, I only use adguard DNS. I don't want to waste any money for external devices for a minimal gain with my usage
you can use pihole. I think it's the best for many people. Some people like me don't need it
desktop programs like adguard will definitely cause some conflicts/trouble in some situations (adguard desktop and AV's certificates, for example) + slow down your machine. Some people can notice it, some don't
2/ I don't like using comodo's webfilter. Firstly, you have to manually update the customized list yourself and it's not a pleasant experience. Slow, buggy + you won't get the latest update everyday